ERIC ED381692: The Workers Technology Skills Development Act. Report Together with Additional Views To Accompany S. 1020. Senate, 103D Congress, 2d Session.

14 Pages·1994·0.31 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
CE 068 831
ED 381 692
Development Act. Report
The Workers Technology Skills
TITLE
To Accompany S. 1020.
Together with Additional Views
Session.
Senate, 103D Congress, 2d
D.C. Senate
Congress of the U.S., Washington,
INSTITUTION
Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
Senate-R-103-401.
REPORT NO
94
PUB DATE
14p.
NOTE
Legal/Legislative/Regulatory Materials (090)
PUB TYPE
MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.
EDRS PRICE
Development; *Employer
Compliance (Legal); Economic
DESCRIPTORS
Legislation; *Futures
Employee Relationship; *Federal
Labor Force
(of Society); Labor Education;
*Research and
Development; *Labor Legislation;
Development; *Technological Advancement
Congress 103rd; Proposed Legislation
IDENTIFIERS
ABSTRACT
and minority
This document provides an overview
1020 would authorize the
viewpoints on Senate Bill 1020. S.
to nonprofit organizations to
Department of Labor to make grants
and advanced workplace
research, identify, and develop new
the improvements of workers'
technologies and practices to promote
job security. These
skills, wages, working conditions, and
disseminate such information to
organizations would then, in turn,
employers, state industrial
workers, workers' organizations,
technology centers and provide
extension programs, and manufacturing
of such technologies and
technical assistance to encourage the use
includes information on the
practices in the workplace. The report
legislation, histury of the legislation
background and need for the
views,
explanation of the bill and committee
and votes in committee,
addition,
impact, and additional views. In
cost estimates, regulatory
is illegal
that the proposed legislation
some senators conclude
the National Labor Regulations Act
because it violates provisions of
They propose an amendment
against labor-management cooperation.
Employees and Management) Act as an
called the TEAM (Teamwork for
ternative. (KC)
that can be made
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best
from the original document.
***************Cc**********************************.i.A:.A'
(E
Calendar No. 717
IREPORT
103D CONGRESS
SENATE
103-401
2d Session
1
THE WORKERS TECHNOLOGY SKILLS DEVELOPMENT ACT
OcToBER 5 (legislative day, SNPTEMBER 12), 1994.Ordered to be printed
Mr. KENNEDY, from the Committee on Labor and Human
Resources, submitted the following
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Educationet Research and improvement
REPORT
ED
ATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC/
This document has been reproduced as
received from the person or organization
together with
originating it
0 Minor changes have been made to improve
reproduction quallly
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
o P0.1113 of view or opinions stated in this docu-
ment do not necessarily represent otticiai
0
OERI position or policy
[To accompany 5.10201
The Committee on Labor and Human Resources, to which was
referred the bill (S. 1020) which would promote economic growth
and job creation by facilitating worker involvement in the develop-
ment and implementation of advanced workplace technologies and
practices, and disseminate such information to workers and em-
ployers, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon
with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and recommends
that the bill as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Purpose
1
II. Background and need for the legislation
2
III. History of the legislation and votes in committee
2
IV. Explanation of the bill and committee views
3
V. Cost estimate
10
VI. Regulatory impact statement
11
VII. Section-by-section analysis
11
VIII. Additional views on S. 1020
12
I. PURPOSE
S. 1020 would authorize the Department of Labor to make grants
to nonprofit organizations to research, identify, and develop new
and advanced workplace technologies and practices to promote the
ss-olo
.4;
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
,41
2
2
improvement of workers' skills, wages, working conditions, and job
security. Those organizations will then, in turn, further dissemi-
nate such information to workers, workers' organizations, employ-
ers, State industrial extension programs and manufacturing tech-
nology centers and provide technical assistance to further
encour-
age the use of such technologies and practices in the workplace.
II. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION
Over the past several years, there has been greater acknowledge-
ment of an interest in the need to support industrial moderniza-
tion. Limited government resources directed to that goal have been
primarily provided through the Technology Reinvestment Project
(TRP) of the Department of Defense and the National institute of
Science and Technology (NIST) of the Department of Commerce.
However, there has been no Federal Government
program which
specifically authorizes funds for the purpose of building the
capac-
ity of workers to become partners in the industrial modernization
process. Worker involvement in modernization of the manufactur-
ing workplace is necessary to ensure that skills enhancement of
workers, their job security, empowerment and maintenance of high
living standards for themselves and their families
are appro-
priately addressed as part of the industrial modernization
process
aloe
with increased productivity and competitiveness. S. 1020 is
a modest,kte p in that direction.
III. HISTORY OF THE LEGISLATION AND VOTES IN COMMITTEE
On May 25, 1993, "The Workers Technology Skills Development
Act" was introduced as S. 1020 by Senator Wofford,
on behalf of
himself, Senator Kennedy and Senator Kerry and
was referred to
the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
A hearing was held on S. 1020 before the Committee
on Labor
an Human Resources on July 1, 1993. At that hearing, Secretary
of Labor Robert Reich testified on the need for
a people-oriented
technology which should enhance workers' skills and
ensure that
new technologies evolve and are adopted in the presence of a sus-
tained commitment to job security, worker retraining, work
reorga-
nization, employee involvement and gainsharing.
In addition to Secretary Reich, the following individuals provided
testimon7,:
Norman E. Garrity, Executive Vice President, Specialty Ma-
terials Group, Corning, Inc., Corning, NY.
William N. Bronson, President Local 53G, Aluminum, Brick
and Glass Workers International Union, Charleroi, PA.
Charles
Edmunson,
President,
Vice
Industries,
Web
Westborough, MA.
Robert Zicaro, Machine Operator, Web Converting, Inc., Fra-
mingham, MA.
Paul Walters, Senior Vice President for Administration, De-
troit Diesel Corp., Detroit, MI.
Jim Brown, Chairman, Local 163, United Automobile, Aero-
space, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, De-
troit, MI.
Mark S. Lang, Executive Director, Northeast Tier Ben
Franklin Technology Center, Bethlehem, PA.
3
3
George H. Sutherland, Director, National Institute of Stand-
ards and Technology, Great Lakes Manufacturing and Tech-
nology Center, Cleveland, OH.
Charles Richardson, Director, Technology and Work Pro-
gram, University of Massachusetts, Lowell, MA.
Mary Harrington, Director, Corporate Labor Relations, East-
man Kodak Co., Rochester, NY, on behalf of the National Asso-
ciation of Manufacturers.
Clifford Erlich, Senior Vice President, Human Resources,
Marriott Corp., Washington, DC, on behalf of Labor Policy As-
sociation.
The following submitted prepared statements:
Honorable Steve Gunderson, U.S. Representative, Third Dis-
trict, WI.
Maureen Sheahan, Executive Director of the Labor-Manage-
ment Council for Economic Renewal, MI.
Statement of the Office of Technology Assessment.
At or after the hearing, Senators Kassebaum, Harkin, and Mi-
kulski joined in co-sponsoring the bill.
S. 1020 was brought up to make-up at the full Committee
on
Labor and Human- Resources on February 23, 1994. At that time,
Senator Kennedy offered an amendment in the nature of
a sub-
stitute, which clarified and simplified the bill. The bill
was amend-
ed as reported favorably from the committee by
a vote of 17 to 0
as follows:
Yeas: Kennedy, Pell, Metzenbaum, Dodd, Simon, Harkin, Mikul-
ski, Bingaman, Wellstone, Wofford, Kassebaurn, Jeffords, Thur-
mond, Durenberger, Coats, Gregg, and Hatch.
One additional amendment was offered during the committee's
consideration of S. 1020. This amendment, offered by Senator
Kassebaum proposed to amend section 8(a)(2) of the National
Labor Relations Act and was defeated by a vote of 10 to 7
as fol-
lows:
Nays: Kennedy, Pell, Metzenbaum, Dodd, Simon, Harkin, Mikul-
ski, Bingaman, Wellstone, and Wofford.
Yeas: Kassebaum, Jeffords, Thurmond, Durenberger, Coats,
Gregg, and Hatch.
On June 15, 1994, Senator Wofford proposed S. 1020
as a sepa-
rate title V to the "Improving America's Schools Act of 1994". Given
the committee's unanimous support for the bill, it
was accepted by
the committee on a voice vote and was incorporated
as title V into
the "Improving America's Schools Act of 1994".
IV. EXPLANATION OF THE BILL AND COMMITTEE VIEWS
In recent years, there has been an increasing realization that
small and medium manufacturers in the United States have lost
their competitive edge in manufacturing technology. There has
been a corresponding acknowledgment of the need for Federal
sup-
port of industrial modernization. Resources have been directed to
that goal primarily through the Technology Reinvestment Project
(TRP) of the Department of Defense and the National Institute of
Science and Technology (NIST) of the Department of Commerce.
4
4
With passage of the National Competitiveness Act 1, the Senate
has recognized the need to assist and encourage employers in the
manufacturing sector to learn about and adopt those advanced
workplace technologies and practices which will build on and ex-
pand the skills and experience of production workers. Adoption of
the best, such strategies by the private sector should result in the
creation of new jobs and the retention of existing manufacturing
jobs with accompanying improvements in workers' skills, wages,
working conditions and job security. However, even with passage
and enactment of the National Competitiveness Act, there will still
be no Federal Government program in place which specifically au-
thorizes funds for the purpose of building the capacity of workers
and worker organizations to address technology issues in workplace
modernization.
Technology can impact positively or adversely upon workers'
workers and
It
deskill
can
and earnings
capability.
skills
disempower them or it can increase workers' skills and be a source
of their empowerment. That the introduction and integration of
technology in the workplace can result in radically different work-
place strategies and impacts has been addressed in the growing lit-
Smart Ma-
erature in the area. For example, in "In the Age of the
chine", the authority presents case studies of two different manu-
facturing plantsPiney Wood and Cedar Bluff, which illustrate the
different strategies vis a vis their workforce that employers can
adopt in deploying technology. A manager at the Piney Wood facil-
ity described the company's approach to technology as follows:
Upper management has looked at modernization as a
work force has
way to eliminate jobs. The reduction of the
been a key element in the justification for all our new com-
puter technology. Reducing head count has been the focus
of managerial rewards. We have simply looked at bodies
rather than price per ton. We never asked the question,
"Can I keep this person and get more tons?"2
An employee who had worked at both the Piney Wood and Cedar
Bluff plants, commented on the radically different approach to
technology the separate managers had adopted:
I can tell you there is a world of difference. In Cedar
Bluff, when you have a problem, you think, sit down and
have a meeting, then think again. The computer allows
people to work on bigger problemsthings you couldn't
tackle without it. It gives us the capacity to do things and
use data that we couldn't otherwise have done. It
facili-
tates seeing new things. What has happened at Cedar
Bluff is that we have given people the tools and expected
them to use them. This is what makes Cedar Bluff a
thought-oriented place, in contrast to Piney Wood, which is
environment oriented. There they solve problems by ask-
ing, how did we do it last time? Thinking is a last resort.3
1The Senate passed the National Competitiveness Act (S. 4) on Mal 41 16, 1994. r :e Congres-
sional Record, Vol. 40, No. 29 at 53006,
2Zuboff, Shoshana, "In the Age of the Smart Machine," N.Y.: Basic Books, Inc. (1988) at 249.
3Zuboff supra at 276.
5
Technology can lead not only to a deskilling of workers, but
to
a decline in employment levels. Economists Paul Krugman and
Robert Lawrence identify new automation technologies
as a key
culprit in the decline of manufacturing employment from 34.2
per-
cent of all American employment in 1950 to 17.4 percent iii 1990.4
Our national policy should ensure an increase in the number of
American jobs, and raise the job skills, working conditions, and liv-
ing standards of our people. Workers should be involved in this
process.
The Workers Technology Skills Development Act recognizes the
importance of including workers in advancing high performance
strategies and of ensuring that workers' needs and goals
as well as
those of their employers are identified and addressed in industrial
modernization. The committee has found that frequently the best
ideas for identifying "best workplace practices" and the best
strate-
gies for implementing such practices in the workplace
come from
the workers themselves. This conclusion echoes those of the
labor-
management teams who testified and the committee's July 1993
hearing. Moreover, workers' concerns for skills enhancement, job
security, true worker participation, a safe and healthy workplace
and high living standards in the workplace of advanced technology
are best addressed by workers themselves.
Unfortuntely, the adoption of "high performance" and "best work-
place practices" is not the norm in the technologically evolving
workplace. According to the July 26, 1993 Report of the Conference
on the Future of the American Workplace, while there are no
accu-
rate estimates of the number of companies that have taken the
high-performance approach, most analysts agree the percentage is
relatively small. "Workplace of the Future," A Report of the
Con-
ference of the American Workplace, July 26, 1993, U.S. Depart-
ments of Commerce and Labor at p. 3. But the need for employers
and workers to address technological change in the workplace
is
ever constant and rapidly growing. As the Department of Labor
re-
port found:
The pace of technological change is accelerating. To -1,.,:ep
up, workers must innovate continuously redesigning their
own jobs as well as products, manufacturing processes,
and delivery systems.
"Report" supra at p. 2.
The committee was fortunate to have several witnesses from
high-performance workplaces testify at the hearing
as to the "best
practices" they had deployed. Several joint labor-management
teams testified regarding their experiences in proposing and adopt-
ing advanced workplace practices and technology. For example,
at
the Corning Plant, in Charleroi, PA, management and labor
testi-
fied as to their success at achieving record-high productivity,
qual-
ity, technological advancement, and employment. They did this
by
combining the introduction of new technology with the adoption
of
self-directed work teams, worker training in participation,
group
dynamics, problem-solving, and participation skills. Workers and
management shared in the decision-making process and the
re-
4Krugman, Paul R., & Lawrence, Robert Z. "Trade, Jobs, and Wages", Scientific
American,
April 1994, at 44-49.
6
sponsibilities of their common enterprise. At Detroit Diesel Cor-
poration, labor and management worked together on communica-
tions, planning, sharing input, and :aking business risks. Workers
were full participants in designing the technology which
allowed
the company to develop advanced engine electronics and compo-
nents to improve the combustion process. The results are impres-
sive. The company's sales increased from $800 million in 1988 to
projected sales of over $1.4 billion in 1993. Productivity has im-
proved 30 percent from 1988 to 1992. Employment increased about
9 percent.
Moreover, witnesses such as Charles Richardson, Director of the
Technology and Work Program at the University of Lowell in Mas-
sachusetts, focused the committee on the crucial issues involved in
effective implementation of new technologies which incorporate
worker involvement. First, any measure of effectiveness must in-
clude not only technologies which improve quality, flexibility and
productivity but also improve working conditions, job security,
skills development and wages. Successful "effective" technologies
should improve workers' lives. Second, workers need to be involved
in the "front end" of the technology and as early as possible in the
introduction of any technology in the workplace. True worker input
means involvement in the design, development and implementation
of technologies. Yet, a 1991 survey of senior executives from 63 of
the largest manufacturing companies in the metalworking industry
found that most companies did not have explicit policies regarding
worker participation in either the design process or in modification
of technology after installment. Finally, worker involvement should
include the ability of the workforce not only to respond to the em-
ployers' needs, but to have workers' needs and ideas be an essential
part of the modernization process. A 1993 study concluded that it
is the accommodation of mutual needs and opportunities between
technology designers and technology users that produced system
benefits. Indeed, the study suggests that unless the information re-
ceived during that process is actually acted upon by adapting and
altering the technology and work processes involved, user involve-
ment could be counterproductive.5
The Workers Technology Skills Development Act is a modest step
toward ensuring that workers are included in the development and
deployment of new technology in the workplace. S. 1020 would au-
thorize the Department of Labor to make grants to nonprofit orga-
nizations, particularly those formed by workers, to research, iden-
tify, and develop new and advanced workplace technologies and
practices which will promote the development and deployment of
technology and the improve merit of workers' skills, wages, working
conditions and job security. It will provide funds through the De-
partment of Labor, the government agency with primary respon-
sibility for training, to labor unions, and other nonprofit institu-
tions so that those organizations can devel,:p strategies for enhanc-
ing workers skills and participation in the development and deploy-
ment of technology in a manner consistent with and promotive of
higher wages, good working conditions, and greater empowerment
5 Leonard-Barton, Dorothy & Sinha, Deepak K., "Developer-User Interaction And User Satis-
faction :n Internal Technology Transfer", Academy of Management Journal, 3ti (51, at 1125-39.
7
7
for workers. The grants will be used to build competence within
these organizations. These organizations will then provide the
knowledge and experience gained through those grants to the De-
partment of Labor and the Department of Commerce for the pur-
pose of disseminating these experiences to others. Materials pro-
duced through the grants can be made available to State industrial
extension programs and manufacturing technology centers as well
as to other training programs. They, in turn, can make use of such
information to provide technical assistance to further encourage the
use of such technologies and practices in the workplace.
The Minority's Additional Views address an issue we considered
irrelevant to the legislation before us. Given our understanding, we
did not address that issue in the original committee views. Given
the Minority's contrary understanding, we do, however, address the
issue the Minority raises at this point.
The Minority faults the committee and the Worker Skills Tech-
nology Development Act (S. 1020) for "fail[ing] to account for our
Federal labor law's prohibitions against worker-management
co-
operation." But, as we demonstrate below, there is no such prohibi-
tion in the Federal labor law.
However, before turning to that task, we note that the Worker
Skills Technology Development Act does not even purport to deal
with the fundamental structural relationships between
manage-
ment and labor. It does not do so because it creates no occasion for
dealing with that subject. As a modest grant program which
au-
thorizes the Department of Labor to provide grants to labor unions
and other nonprofit organizations to promote worker involvement
in the development of a high performance workplace, it neither ne-
cessitates nor encourages the employer creation of employee com-
mittees that raises any question under the National Labor Rela-
tions Act. All this legislation does is authorize funds to non-profit
organizations to develop and promote participation which
can cer-
tainly be spent in a manner consistent with the NLRA. The De-
partment of Labor has reviewed both S. 1020 and S. 669 and con-
cluded that "the type of labor-management cooperation which is
en-
visioned in S. 1020 would not violate the NLRA."
That conclusion is not surprising. The National Labor Relations
Act was enacted, in substantial part, to facilitate labor-manage-
ment cooperation. Senator Wagner, the author of the Act, under-
stood that the primary requirement for cooperation is that "employ-
ers and employees deal * * * with one another on an equal foot-
ing."6 The NLRA creates a mechanismthe selection by workers
of a bargaining respresentativethrough which working
men and
women can establish the independent organizations which are the
first requisite of real cooperation.
Senator Wagner recognized too that "one of the great obstacles
to genuine freedom of self-organization"and thus to genuine
labor-management cooperationare employer established and
con-
trolled labor organizations. Id. at 1373. Accordingly, Section 8(a)(2)
of the NLRA prohibits employer-dominated labor organizations.
Congress' judgment in the Wagner Act and in the Taft-Hartley
6 1 NLRB, Legislative History of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, at 24 11949).
8
8
amendments was that such employer entities do not enhance pro-
ductivity or empower employees.
Rela-
Contrary to the Minority's assertions, the National Labor
tions Board's recent Electromation7 decision is entirely faithful to
Charles
the statutory law. Electromation, in the words of Professor
whose
Morris, was a "garden variety section 8(a)(2) case" * * *
Vu
"fame relates more to its hype than to its type". Morris, Deja
Ad-
and 8(a)(2)What's Really Being Killed by Electromation, p. 2,
dress Before the Commission on the Future of Worker-Management
Relations, Docket No. 158. The Board decision broke no new
of
ground. And that is undoubtedly why the Seventh Circuit Court
Appeals unanimously enforced its decision.
Electromation involved "employee participation" committees uni-
agitation
laterally created by the employer in response to employee
in working conditions. In
over the Company's adverse changes
Electromation, the new management of the company decided uni-
laterally to deny the employeesmost of whom earned just $6 an
hourannual wage increases and to make other changes in the
employees' conditions of employment. When those employees be-
sought to diffuse the
came restive over these changes, management
Committee
tension by "imposing on the employees an organized
mechanism composed of managers and employees instructed to
`represent' fellow employees." 309 NLRB at 998.
The committees dealt with traditional subjects of collective bar-
gaining such as attendance policies as it affected pay and discipline
and pay progressions for premium positions. The employer alone
established the structure, the rules, the composition and operating
procedures of the committees and even determined the subject mat-
alone se-
ters that the committees could consider. The employer
lected the employees on each committee; the employees did not vote
by em-
to even ratify the employer's selection. True participation
ployees on the committee was further limited because the employer
alone had the final say on any committee proposal. And, when the
employees sought to be represented by a union to address their
created "Action
concerns, management pitted the management -
Committees" against the union, suspending management's involve-
and tell-
ment with the committees "due to the Union's campaign"
ing the employees that the "employer could not work with the com-
mittees until after the [union] election." Thus, Electromation has
nothing to do with genuine labor-management cooperation. Indeed,
the Board found that:
the purpose of the Action Committees was, as the record
demonstrates, not to enable management and employees to
cooperate to improve "quality" or "efficiency," but to create
in employees the impression that their disagreements with
management had been resolved bilaterally.
309 NLRB at 998. (Emphasis added.)
The Electromation decision is thus consistent with the purposes
and the statutory language of the NLRA. "[T]he Board broke no
committees' to be labor or-
new ground when it found those 'action
(Nos. 92-4129 and 93-
F.2d
Electromation, Inc. 309 NLRB 990 (1992) enforced
1109) (7th Cir. 1994).
9
CSI
9
ganizations dominated by the employer." "The Developing
Labor
Law," 3rd Ed., First Supp. 1990-1992 (1993, ABA).
The Minority's Additional Views state that "[t]he
NLRA clearly
prohibits employee-management cooperation
regarding working
conditions, including bilateral discussions
over how to use new
technology in the workplace" and that the committee
should have
adopted the Teamwork for Employees and
Management (TEAM)
Act as an amendment to S. 1020 and the Federal
labor laws in
order to "permit workers and management
to meet together to dis-
cuss working conditions and quality and productivity issues." But
insofar as the TEAM Act seeks to enable
employers to "discuss
matters of mutual interest" with employees, it is wholly
unneces-
sary. In the companion case to Electromation, E.J. du Pont Co.,
311
NLRB 893 (1993), the NLRB took pains
to point out the variety of
forms of cooperative relationships that
are open to employers and
employees under the NLRA, both in organized
and unorganized
workplaces. The NLRA does not prevent employers
from delegating
to an employee committee or team "governed by
majority decision-
making" and with "management representatives
* * * in the mi-
nority * * * the power to decide matters [of
employment condi-
tions] for itself, rather than simply make
proposals to manage-
ment." Id. at 895. Nor does the Act prevent
employers from dis-
cussing issues of working conditions with
an individual employee
or with a "brainstorming group" or with an employee
group con-
vened "for the purpose of sharing information
with the employer."
Id. at 894.
The TEAM Act, by permitting the unilateral
creation and estab-
lishment by employers of employee
committees is, moreover, di-
rectly contrary to the fundamental principle
that in bilateral rela-
tionships, each party should be free to select
its own representa-
tives and to decide for itself what issues (if
any) it wishes to make
to the other party, and what accommodations (if
any) it wishes to
reach with the other party. In
any other context it would be un-
thinkable to allow A to select B's representative
for purposes of
dealing with A. The employment relationshipin
which workers
are dependent upon their employers for their
very livelihoodis
the last relationship in which such
conflict of interest should be
countenanced. Yet that is precisely what the
TEAM Act would do.
If the TEAM Act were enacted, employers
predictably would cre-
ate employer-dominated organizations at the
first sign of efforts by
employees to create an independent
representative. They would do
so, because employees who, all things being equal, would
prefer
independent representation, are unlikely
to take on both the em-
ployer and the employer-controlled employee
organization. Thus
the predictable effect of the TEAM Act
would be to encourage em-
ployers who recognize the value of
some form of employee represen-
tationand who are therefore willing to
accept their employees'
choice of a union as their representative
under current lawto op-
pose any such employee action in order to convince the employee
to settle for an employer-demonstrated TEAM.
Indeed, the TEAM Act has, not
one, but two perverse effects. To
take some account of section 8(a)(2)'s
policies, that proposal pro-
tects the creation and maintenance of
employer-dominated em-
ployee organizations only
so long as the organization does not en-
10